Offer and acceptance AO3

Question 1

offer and acceptance - inv to treat ao3

Answer 1

• distinction between an offer and invitation to treat is confusing for both parties to a contract. the differences between teh two are often very slight e.g. fisher v bell etc. lay people don’t understand this - disparity between law and practice (‘offers’ in shops etc.)
• inv to treat maintains freedom of contract for the shop owner - can follow the law and not offer for sale alcohol/knives etc. to underage, also allows them to choose who to sell to (within the law)
• customers generall believe that they have a right to be sold items - it ahs been suggested that inv to treat should be treated as offesr so the law would mirror the public’s belief in the situation

Question 1

offer and acceptance - intro ao3

Answer 1

all common law - goes against sop and ps, judges unelected and therefore unaccountable
confusing distinction between offers and invitations to treat as seen in carlill v carbolic smokeball

Question 2

offer and acceptance - para 2 ao3

Answer 2

machines cannot do an inv to treat as they are unable to decline
timing can be crucial
uncertainty around what a reliable person is in dickinson v dodds

Question 3

offer and acceptance - acceptance ao3

Answer 3

• acceptance by conduct surely goes against rules on communication and silence - inconsistency
• acceptance by post arguably now out of date as few contracts are sent in the post, most now use electronic methods of communcation or couriers which are quicker and minimise the risk of getting lost in the post. unfair for offeror as could be in a bninding contract for days without knowing - possibly longer if reply is lost in the post
• law has struggled to adapt to electronic means of communcation. courts ahve been reluctant to apply the ‘postal rules’ to electronic means of communication

Question 4

offer and acceptance - article 11 electronic commerce regulations

Answer 4

• unfair as they usually take your money first before you even have a binding contract - it may be difficult to regain the payment made under the non-existent contract